Branham v. Gardner
Decision Date | 08 September 1967 |
Docket Number | No. 16911.,16911. |
Citation | 383 F.2d 614 |
Parties | John B. BRANHAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John W. GARDNER, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, Defendant-Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Ronald W. May, Pikeville, Ky., for appellant.
Moss Noble, Asst. U. S. Atty., Lexington, Ky., George I. Cline, U. S. Atty., Lexington, Ky., on brief, for appellee.
Before McCREE, Circuit Judge, PORTER,* District Judge, and McALLISTER, Senior Circuit Judge.
This appeal is from denial of an application for disability benefits under the Social Security Act. The Hearing Examiner's decision was approved by the Appeals Council, and thereafter the District Court dismissed the claim.
Appellant is a man past sixty years of age. He "got nowhere in school," never learned to read or write, and became a manual laborer when he was twelve years old, helping his father cut mine timbers. He continued at this work until he was fourteen, when he got a job working on a coke oven as a dauber, and continued this job for two years until he was sixteen years old, when he started work as an underground coal miner. He then worked for thirty-six years as a hand loader in the coal mines. In August 1959, he became so ill while at work as a coal miner that he had to quit the job.
First of all, in order to understand what this controversy is about, it will clarify the case to state that appellant's claim is that he is disabled as a result of psychoneurosis, anxiety reaction, coupled with accompanying cardiac and arteriosclerotic impairments.
Psychoneurosis is a term used in psychiatry. While those who believe in a so-called "no-nonsense" approach to mental illness say that, in common parlance, everyone is neurotic, there are none skilled in the science of psychiatry or medicine who would disagree with regard to the meaning of psychoneurosis, as that term is used by physicians and psychiatrists.
It might be well here to recall that in the case of Pollard v. United States, 282 F.2d 450 (C.A.6), this court had occasion to recognize the debt which society owes to psychiatry, when we said, with respect to the controlling issue therein considered:
In the above cited criminal case, this court held that the undisputed evidence of psychiatric experts that the defendant therein was not responsible for his actions because of psychoneurosis, dissociation reaction, could not be disregarded by the court, but must be accepted as against the "common sense" view of the trial judge that defendant was so responsible.
We are speaking, then, in this case of psychoneurosis and anxiety reactions, not as lawyers or laymen but, necessarily, according to the evidence presented, of those terms, as used by experts — psychiatrists and physicians — who have embodied them in their psychiatric and medical reports which were considered in the evidence on the hearing of this case.
As this court said in Miracle v. Celebrezze, 351 F.2d 361, 376:
Further, in Miracle v. Celebrezze, supra, p. 376, quoting an authority in psychiatry, it was said:
""
It used to be that, unless impairment or disabilities could be substantiated by objective symptoms, they were not considered, as, in any way, established. "But modern medicine is neither so scientific nor so helpless today that it either does, or must, evaluate only objective factors." Hayes v. Celebrezze, 311 F.2d 648, 654 (C.A.5).
In Walker v. Gardner, reported July 3, 1967, in 266 F.Supp. 998, 1002 (D.C. Ind.), it was stated:
Psychoneurosis, with anxiety reaction, is the most important element in this case.
The diagnostic terms employed by psychiatrists and in the records of mental hospitals are abbreviations for sets of symptoms which are relatively standardized in medical literature and increasingly relied upon in practice. That laymen are less familiar with the content of these terms than with the terminology of older branches of medicine, should not cause us to close our eyes to useful evidence. We have gone far since the days when mental injury was considered too speculative to be compensable. Where we are dealing with regularly recorded psychiatric diagnoses, which would be acceptable in testimonial form, there is no reason to condemn them as more conjectural than ordinary medical diagnoses, or as less likely than ordinary medical diagnoses to be agreed upon by equally competent men. Lyles v. United States, 103 U.S. App.D.C. 22, 254 F.2d 725, 740. In the instant case, psychoneurosis is a disorder recognized in the Regulations governing disability benefits under the Social Security Act, 20 C.F.R. Sec. 404.1519.
Psychoneurosis, as defined in "A Psychiatric Glossary" approved by the American Psychiatric Association,1 consists of:
We have seen from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Roy v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH & SERV.
...to the insulation of the substantial evidence test." Black v. Richardson, 356 F.Supp. 861, 870 (D.S.C.1973), citing Branham v. Gardner, 383 F.2d 614, 626 (6th Cir. 1967). The Social Security Administration has adopted regulations setting forth the legal standards to be applied in disability......
-
Floyd v. Finch
...Examiner. Colegate v. Gardner, 265 F. Supp. 987 (1967) (S.D.Ohio, W.D.); Henderson v. Flemming, 283 F.2d 882 (C.A.5). In Branham v. Gardner, 383 F.2d 614, 626, 627 (C.A.6), this court "The rule governing these cases has been clearly set forth in Ferran v. Flemming, 293 F.2d 568, 571 (C.A.5)......
-
Jenkins v. Gardner
...only explanation of that fact is that he mistakenly thought that clinical data or evidence meant objective clinical evidence. In Branham v. Gardner, 383 F.2d 614 (C.A. 6), a Hearing Examiner had held that "the Act requires that the impairment be `medically determinable'; that is, the existe......
-
Journell v. Astrue
...of fact that are unsupported by substantial evidence. McClanahan v. Comm'r of Soc., 474 F.3d 830 at 833 (citing Branham v. Gardner, 383 F.2d 614, 626-627 (6th Cir. 1967)). The Commissioner's findings as to any fact shall be conclusive if supported by substantial evidence. Id. (citing 42 U.S......